Big surprise, the NRA keeps a mailing list

Some people who support taking away gun rights from law abiding American citizens are making a big deal out of their sudden realization that the NRA keeps a mailing list.

The NRA collects name and address from members who join the NRA, as well as from people who take gun safety courses, purchase hunting licenses, get pistol permits, or attend gun shows. The NRA has been doing this for years, almost as if the NRA is trying to get the names and addresses of people who like guns or may be gun owners! Oh, wait, that actually shouldn’t be a such a surprise. The surprise is that some people are now trying to mislead the public into believing an address list is the same thing as a “gun registry.”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize the difference between a mailing list and a “gun registry.” The NRA is opposed to gun registries. It fights against laws that would mandate gun owners provide (at risk of criminal prosecution) the serial number into a registry for each and every gun legally purchased. An actual gun registry could thus be used for confiscation.

So let’s see what we have here. On the one hand, we have a grass roots pro-gun organization collecting addresses of people who are interested in guns. And on the other hand we have a government entity that wants to force by law all gun owners to enter into an official gun registry their purchase or transfer, by specific serial number and personal identifying information, of each and every gun transaction, even private sales or trades. And some people want you to believe the mailing list is the same as a gun registry?

Is it really a surprise to anyone that a pro-gun organization might acquire some information on those who may be interested in guns, and those who might support their causes? They will send you mail, and let you know if some politician is about to try and ban guns. They may ask if you want to join the NRA. They may even, gasp, ask if you want to buy some NRA merchandise. Sounds like they are some sort of pro-gun organization! Shouldn’t there be a law against people organizing to talk about guns, creating literature about guns and hunting, organizing shooting matches, teaching gun safety, and making voters aware of proposed unconstitutional laws against gun ownership? If we allow an organization to do that stuff, the next thing you know there will be credit card companies collecting names and addresses of people who might want to use their services. Or the humane society might start sending out information to pet owners!

Contrast what the NRA, or any organization that puts together address lists, is doing, with the possibility of a government mandated universal background check system and gun registry that can be used to confiscate guns. In fact, the State of California is already proving that background check data can be used to confiscate guns.

I am not necessarily against background checks, although I do not think they will effectively reduce crime. However, if we were to have background checks, we would need stronger promises than merely saying the federal government can’t create a registration list with it. We would need to be clear that states could not use that information to confiscate guns. We would need to make state gun registration lists illegal so that they were not backdoor run arounds on federal prohibitions against registration. People who say that the failed Manchin-Toomey background bill “explicitly PROHIBITED the federal government from creating a database” apparently do not understand that the registration information still could be passed to states. Nor have they read the fine print where it does not actually prohibit the entire federal government from building a registration database for confiscation, but merely specifies that the Attorney General cannot do so. That loop hole would be big enough to support a super highway of registration information used for confiscation.

Some people like to exclaim, “the government would never confiscate guns!” Curiously, those same people are also the ones who support gun bans. Really? You want the government to ban guns, but you don’t want them to confiscate the banned gun? That makes no sense at all. Even I support having police make the best and most efficient use of data available. Having the police arrest criminals is a good thing. But the concern about a gun registry is that the California-style confiscation tactics might also be used to take guns away from the law abiding.

@Jeff G.
You can continue to promote your paranoia if over registries if you like, but this video is very questionable. It would be interesting to know the circumstances of how the agent became “former” agent. He stops short of saying that people he confiscated guns from were not prohibited persons, but makes comments like “these are not criminals”. The obviously cleverly edited video leaves the viewer with the impression that they were confiscating guns from people that were not prohibited. And yes, there are obviously more serious criminals with guns running free, but until they commit a crime they are unidentifiable. The people on California’s confiscation list are known criminals whether the former agent likes it or not.

If you can show factual information where guns are being confiscated from people who are not prohibited from ownership, then I am all with you. Otherwise, if you support this video I can only come to the conclusion that you do not oppose gun ownership by criminals and the mentally ill. The first video on this same topic suggests that “innocent” people are having their guns confiscated, when in fact the woman in the video was prohibited due to a mental health issue. Many people who support gun rights, including me, feel that the mental health is aspect is often overlooked. And then when it isn’t overlooked the NRA uses it for propaganda?
You can’t have it both ways.

I never said there was anything wrong with California taking guns from criminals or from the mentally ill. I only pointed out a link to the video for the interesting tactics being used in the confiscation. I very plainly said the concern is if this were to be done against law abiding gun owners.

You don’t have to jump to the level of paranoia to see how confiscation can be the outcome of registration. If something such as a gun gets banned, first demand that it gets turned in, then send the police out to get it for those who have not yet turned it in.

That is the reality of how it works, not paranoia. The fact that anti-gun people are calling for bans on guns means that registration, coupled with those bans, would lead to the confiscation of those guns.

Guns legal one day, confiscated the next. Of course the police wisely will allow people an amnesty period to turn the guns in, but then they would go out and confiscate the ones from those who haven’t complied yet.

@Jeff G.
What you did was clearly post a link where the NRA distorts the purpose of the gun confiscation program in California by insinuating that CA is targeting law-abiding citizens. Show me where you “plainly said the concern is if this were to be done against law abiding gun owners.”

Your only words referring to the video- “This is an interesting video with an interview of a California agent involved in the gun confiscations.”

@LiftUptheFlag, said in my article “I support having police make the best and most efficient use of data available. Having the police arrest criminals is a good thing. But the concern about a gun registry is that the California-style confiscation tactics might also be used to take guns away from the law abiding.”
And then upon finding the video, I posted the link and said, “This is an interesting video with an interview of a California agent involved in the gun confiscations.”

And then you proceded to ask me what I wrote, and here we are, me showing you what I actually wrote.

So hopefully you have now realized how background checks and registration can lead to confiscation, and that it is a legitimate concern for gun owners and must be addressed before universal background checks could ever be agreed upon.

@Jeff G.
Do you or do you not agree with what the NRA tries to portray in the video? You posted it after another of your “the sky is falling” commentaries and then posted the link to the video for all to see. The intent of the video is clear, they want you to believe that guns are being confiscated from the law-abiding. You say, “But the concern about a gun registry is that the California-style confiscation tactics might also be used to take guns away from the law abiding.” And then post a video where the NRA insinuates that is what is happening.

We can debate semantics all day. There are only two explanations for what they are trying to accomplish with the video. To mislead the viewer into thinking guns are being taken out of the houses of law-abiding citizens. Or…that the state of California does not have the right to confiscate firearms from people prohibited from ownership. Do you support the position of the NRA in the video?

@LiftUptheFlag, as I already told you, I provided the link to the video because I found the California-style confiscation tactics interesting.

Apparently so do you, so it was a good video link to provide.

My concern is those confiscation tactics could be used against the law abiding. So we are talking about the reality of confiscation, right? Not paranoia, right? Even you have to agree with that. And then your question becomes: is it currently being done against the law abiding or is it only being done against criminals and the mentally ill?

I don’t have enough information to know if it is currently being done against the law abiding. But my concern is that if we were to have a universal background check system and resulting registration, then confiscation would be used against the law abiding.

That should be your concern, too. But yet you dismiss it as being “paranoid.” The objective reality is some people want to ban guns, and bills get created to do that, and some states even pass laws banning various guns. The logical question follows of why wouldn’t they confiscate those guns? What’s to stop them? Well, the first problem is they don’t know who has the guns. In order to know that, they need a gun registry.

@Jeff G.
You continue to avoid answering the question. Do you or do you not support the message of the NRA in the video?

I do not find it interesting. I find it to be another attempt by the NRA to mislead the American public as they attempt to prevent any gun regulations that would keep guns out of the hands of people who are prohibited from ownership. Disgusting is the word I would use.

@LiftUpthFlag, I answered your question. I said I found the video interesting, especially as it relates to the confiscation tactics. That is the message I took away from it, informational in that regard.

As you now know, background checks won’t be effective without registration, and that that has the huge problem of confiscation. A focus on keeping violent criminals in jail will be more effective.

@Jeff G.
I am not trying to put you on the spot. But that is where you end up when you post a link to an obviously misleading video that you, yourself cannot admit to supporting the intended message. I readily admit that both extremes of the gun issue distort information, but that video and the one that preceded it, clearly attempt to create a level of paranoia among law-abiding gun owners.

You can continue to say that background checks will not be effective without registration, knowing that as long as those two issues are linked, there is little chance of any BGC legislation at the federal level. The fact is that universal BGCs can indeed work without a registry and would be considerably more effective than what is being done now in 33 states, which is NOTHING.

@LiftUptheFlag, thus far, I found the tactics interesting, and the concern is if they are being used to confiscate from the law abiding.

If you think background checks can be effective without recording the serial number for a registration, then by all means support that decision. Maybe someone will introduce such a bill, and the NRA may be interested in supporting it. The bill should make clear that no recording of serial numbers nor type of gun is allowed. Not by the feds, and not by the states. The parties handling the transaction shall not be required to record that information either.

The few remaining issues would be cost and the matter of having a process of speedy appeal if denied in error because a name is on the wrong list.

I am not a NRA member but I did receive a call from them soliciting me for membership shortly after my last rifle purchase a few years ago. They may or may not have known what my purchase was specifically or not. I elected not to join and still have yet to do so. I was neither offended nor surprised at them calling me to join.

————-

JG I would like to ask you and your readers any thoughts on this story?

MOREAU — The Moreau man charged with illegally selling an assault rifle under the state’s controversial new gun laws pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of criminal possession of a weapon on Thursday in Moreau Town Court.

William G. Greene, 51, pleaded guilty to fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a misdemeanor, with the understanding the two misdemeanor charges filed under the state’s SAFE Act gun laws would be dismissed. All of the charges were the same level of misdemeanor.

He was sentenced to a conditional discharge, paid a $200 fine and required to surrender the semiautomatic rifle, which was seized after he allegedly illegally sold it on April 16. The charges were punishable by up to a year in Saratoga County Jail.

Greene also will receive a “certificate of relief from civil disabilities” that will allow him to possess firearms despite the plea to the criminal charge.

The charge to which he pleaded guilty accused him of possessing a gun that was illegal before the SAFE Act was passed, according to Saratoga County District Attorney James Murphy.

“Under the Penal Law, this gun was illegal since the 1960s and was manufactured in 2011,” Murphy said in a news release.

The disposition was a “fair and reasonable outcome for all parties,” Murphy said.

The plea deal came after a State Police analysis of the gun found the Rguns .223-caliber rifle had a pistol grip and removable flash suppressor, fixtures that made it an illegal assault rifle under state law for years, possibly opening Greene up to a felony charge.

Greene’s lawyer, Gregory Canale, said the possibility of facing a felony made it a much more difficult case to defend. Possession of an illegal weapon is a “strict liability” offense, so the excuse that Greene did not know it was illegal would not have been sufficient, he said.

After the State Police analysis, the defense also hired an expert to review the gun who came to the same conclusion about the gun as the police expert, Canale said.

“We wanted to try the case and had a very meritorious defense on the SAFE Act charges, but once we were dealing with a possible felony my client made the decision to take the plea to a misdemeanor and move on with his life,” Canale said.

After the hearing, Greene said he was “relieved” the case was over. He said he sold the gun to help pay for medical bills of a family member.

“I feel sorry for anybody out there that has a gun like that because I didn’t know (it was illegal),” he told Post-Star news partner WNYT-TV NewsChannel 13.

Greene was arrested by State Police the day after a ban on the sale of assault rifles took effect. An undercover investigator allegedly purchased a .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle from Greene for $2,000 when the sale of the gun was no longer legal.

The case was the first in the region prosecuted under the controversial SAFE Act gun laws passed by state legislators last winter.

Greene was scheduled to be in court for arguments to dismiss the charges after Canale claimed his client was set up by police to prove a point that the new law would be enforced.

Jeff, you have no possible way to know that it is not in fact a registry. Go right ahead and call it a “mailing list” if you’d like to, we’re quite accustomed to your truth twisting. Use any term you’d like to, it won’t change the facts of the matter.

It is in fact true that the NRA “mailing list” itemizes all weapons owned by every household member they’ve targeted who responds to their inquiry, with their first point of contact being either an completed NRA membership application received after one has completed an NRA sponsored training program or event.

Here’s what former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman and current leader of The Independent Firearm Owners Association had to say about the NRA’s “mailing list”: “we’ve been doing this since the old days. You could obtain from most states the listings of hunter licenses from the Department of Wildlife and Conservations. It was sort of amazing what we knew about people from that. There were early doe permit holders, black powder holders, so many different seasons. It was a lot of data.”

On “tens of millions of people.”

The Big Bad Wolf has you targeted!

Just can’t trust anyone these days. You read about the Sovereign Citizens who were arrested while plotting to torture and kill policemen? He stood his ground. While he was being handcuffed he told the cop he had no authority over him to arrest him. Even cuffed he still doesn’t get it.

Society has had their fill of fanatical gun nuts and change is coming. Obey the law or have your freedoms stripped away. It is that simple.

@Sentinel, you appear to be the one doing “truth twisting” so what does that accomplish? Name calling back and forth? Name calling detracts from the discussion.

The NRA collects a variety of information that is legal to obtain. However the information about who has a gun, or what gun that may be, simply does not exist.

If you bought a gun last year, and then sold it to your uncle, how would the NRA know? Even if the department store told the NRA you bought a gun, they wouldn’t know you sold it. Would your department store tell the NRA you bought a gun? Would the federal governemt tell them from the background check? If not, how would the NRA even know you bought a gun? Did your uncle tell the NRA he bought a gun from you? Did you uncle tell the NRA about the 2 guns you bought from him?

If you join the NRA (and please do, because it is a good idea), you don’t have to tell them if you own guns. And you certainly don’t have to tell them the serial numbers of your guns. They would have your name and address when you join, but how would they know if you have a gun?

You see how erroneous it is to jump to the conclusion that the NRA has a gun registry? They have a mailing list.

*Disclaimer* I have no political agenda in posting the following information, I simply have professional experience in the IT field.

What the NRA has is more than a mailing list, but less than a registry. It is a database of as much information as they can gather on anyone who has even a passing interest in guns. What they are doing is no different than what any other company (in the US certainly, probably even globally) is doing.

No matter what you do on the internet, your data is being collected. Most of that data is being collected by Facebook, even if you’re not signed in or don’t have an account at all. Every company is collecting this information, some of the heavy hitters are Facebook, Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Good luck avoiding that.

Personal data has become a commodity… no, a form of currency. If you use a monetarily free service, you are paying for that service in data. If you use a monetarily paid service, you are paying a service fee in data. The only way to avoid having your personal information collected by companies is to not use the internet, not be on any mailing lists, not have any accounts with anyone (including utilities).

Hackers are concerned with information that will get them lots of money, leverage against someone or something, or power. They’re not looking to access marketing databases that are bought and sold between companies, they are looking for financial information or sensitive information that can lead to identity theft. This is one of the reasons that government databases and financial institutions are the types of places that are most often hacked.

Some people freaked out when it was revealed, the extent to which Google was scanning emails sent/received by Gmail. Some people freak out about Facebook security on a regular basis. Some people did freak out about the NRA database, but most people didn’t. In all of those cases.

It’s simply a fact of life in the early 21st century. Your data is currency and you have to pay to use anything at all.

Jeff wrote, “@Sentinel, you appear to be the one doing “truth twisting” so what does that accomplish? Name calling back and forth? Name calling detracts from the discussion.”

The entire point of your posting is to discredit the damning report. “Name calling?” Seriously? Your truth-twisting opening sentence, “Some people who support taking away gun rights from law abiding American citizens are making a big deal out of their sudden realization that the NRA keeps a mailing list.”

No one is taking away anyone’s gun rights. For once you didn’t refer to those you’re referring to as “Gun Grabbers” or “Anti-Freedom.”

Your question, “How would they know…” is ridiculous. I just quoted Chris W. The NRA would know if they responded to an NRA sponsored survey and in many other number of ways, like contracting with advertising agencies to buy sales data from people buying ammunition and firearms.

Are you being intentionally naive or purposely deceitful?

Mailing lists of today are as similar to those of yesteryear that had simply your name, phone number and address as the NRA is today compared to its pre-’70s radicalization. They are incredibly detailed and even note your buying trends, what your buying and how often.

In trying to answer that question, as you say, are you being intentionally naive or purposely deceitful?

Just because “Chris W” says he gave the NRA some information, does not mean everyone does. And what, exactly did Chris W give them? Serial numbers of his guns? No. And if Chris W sells his guns, or buys new ones, is he going to tell the NRA? No.

Can you not see that it is just plain factually incorrect to say the NRA has a gun registry? They do not have a gun registry. They do have a mailing list, and sure they have as much info as they can additionally get. But they don’t have a gun registry, and cannot create one even if they tried.

They do not know the guns you may or may not have. Unless you told them. Did you tell them? Did you send them the serial numbers? I bet the answer to that is no.

Please point out for every reader where I said the NRA kept a Gun Registry.

You wrote, “@Sentinel, the question still stands, how would they know?”

Their mailing list is very detailed, as I said. Please reread FyreGoddess’ earlier comment. I really don’t care what you call it, I resigned years ago and they have nothing on me aside from what the public record holds.

You wrote, “They do not know the guns you may or may not have. Unless you told them. Did you tell them?

Perhaps you would be better off asking the source of the information himself, or are you calling former NRA LOBBYIST and current leader of The Independent Firearm Owners Association Richard Feldman a liar who had this to say about the NRA’s “mailing list”: “we’ve been doing this since the old days. You could obtain from most states the listings of hunter licenses from the Department of Wildlife and Conservations. It was sort of amazing what we knew about people from that. There were early doe permit holders, black powder holders, so many different seasons. It was a lot of data.”

On “tens of millions of people.”

I don’t expect you to believe me, Jeff, but you should trust the NRA lobbyist who used that information to tailor his targeting accurately who declared it to be true.

@Sentinel, you said “registry.” None of anything you’ve referred to supprts the false assertion that the NRA has a gun registry. So what if they know the kind of hunting license someone got. That doesn’t tell them what guns you may or may not have.

The NRA does not know who owns what guns, or even if someone owns guns at all. The NRA does not have a gun registry. It is anti-gun people who want to build a gun registry, and they want to mislead the public into thinking the NRA already has one. The problem is they are simply wrong, because the NRA does not have a gun registry.

Why would I need to call the NRA lobbyist a liar? He wasn’t the one saying the NRA has a gun registry.

I’ll ask you once again for you to point out to all readers where in any comment I’ve yet written wherein I said The NRA kept a gun registry. I have not done any such thing and you’re claiming I have, so it’s time for you to admit your mistake and apologize for continuing to mislead your readers.

In your last to me you wrote, “@Sentinel, you said “registry.”

Here, Jeff and also John Q for paying so close attention, is what I wrote,”Jeff, you have no possible way to know that it is not in fact a registry. Go right ahead and call it a “mailing list” if you’d like to, we’re quite accustomed to your truth twisting. Use any term you’d like to, it won’t change the facts of the matter.

It is in fact true that the NRA “mailing list” itemizes all weapons owned by every household member they’ve targeted who responds to their inquiry, with their first point of contact being either an completed NRA membership application received after one has completed an NRA sponsored training program or event.”

Show me where I’ve written “The NRA has a gun registry with all your guns’ serial numbers.”

What I said was that you, Jeff, do not know what they have or how detailed it is. Whether they include serial numbers or not really doesn’t matter, does it. After all, all that’s important is “Are there guns in the household?”

When the police conduct a raid, they are not at that point concerned with serial numbers, they want to know if you’re armed.

It’s simple, really. If at any time the government wanted to confiscate your guns, they would, period. They do not need a registry to go from door to door.

Your paranoid position is eroding whatever is left among some who still trust in government and the Constitution that created it. Remember that.

@Sentinel, it does in fact matter very much if they have specific guns and serial numbers. The NRA doesn’t have that key information. And I’m very glad you appear to be clarifying your statement and admitting that the NRA does not have that information.

They have names and addresses of people interested in guns.

If you happened to tell them you have a specific gun, then they would keep that information. If you give any organization info on a voluntary survey, that organization tends to keep that info, whether it is useful or not. Your misleading statement that the NRA “itemizes all weapons owned by every household member they’ve targeted who responds to their inquiry” sounds ominous, but really amounts to a meaningless statement. Who is going around telling the NRA the specific guns they have? I asked you if you even heard of them asking for that information, and apparently you have not. People are not “itemizing” their guns to the NRA.

Hopefully you can see the difference between the mailing list information the NRA collects and the situtation we are fighting against where anti-gun members of the government wants to force gun owners by way of universal background checks to provide registration of all guns being purchased, with criminal penalties for not providing that information. I’m surprised you can’t see how a mailing list is different than a registration list of specific guns and serial numbers.

Having the government know you are interested in guns means very little. It amounts to a “the sky is falling” cry. The government can probably get names and addresses from people who have hunting magazine subscriptions, or get IP addresses from guns and hunting related websites. Big deal. Just like the NRA inforamtion, it would only tell them someone is interested in guns. Maybe even just interested in a discussion about guns. It doesn’t tell the government that the person has guns, nor does it provide the specific guns and serial numbers to be used for a confiscation.

And still, after repeated requests to prove your allegation true that I “said registry” we find no admission of your error and certainly no apology for actually misleading your readers. I said no such thing, that the NRA kept a registry.

Jeff, please don’t put your words as though they were mine. I’ve not mentioned the recording or volunteering of anyone’s weapon’s serial numbers. You did when you were under the wrong impression I had suggested the NRA kept a registry of your weapons, something I have not suggested here or anywhere, ever.

It’s a shame you felt what I wrote needed clarification when I most plainly stated my opinion originally. I also don’t see any sort of an apology from you admitting that I never said any such thing as you wrongly claimed, repeatedly. I did not write anywhere that the NRA maintains a gun registry.

No apology from you nor any recognition of your gross error whatsoever.

“Why would I need to call the NRA lobbyist a liar? He wasn’t the one saying the NRA has a gun registry.”

Nor did I and neither did I suggest that former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman and current leader of The Independent Firearm Owners Association said they kept a registry.

You wrote,”@Sentinel, it does in fact matter very much if they have specific guns and serial numbers.”

Not a damned bit does it matter, Jeff, to the cop called to a gun owner’s home to quell a disturbance what serial numbers belong to which weapons. Once one is in custody the serial numbers will be recorded – by the police and given to the prosecutor, if warranted. And you might even have them returned to you!

Oh, so many files and so many agents! How do you manage to breathe?

Here’s the money line: “If you happened to tell them you have a specific gun, then they would keep that information.”

“Your misleading statement that the NRA “itemizes all weapons owned by every household member they’ve targeted who responds to their inquiry” sounds ominous, but really amounts to a meaningless statement. Who is going around telling the NRA the specific guns they have?”

There was nothing “misleading” in my comment. I cannot be held responsible for any reader’s weak reading skill.

Perhaps you should once again to call upon Chris W, whom without prodding or coercion volunteered that information to the NRA. By the way, how many times are you going to ask questions already answered? Chris W, for one.

You may want to explain to Chris W the meaninglessness of his reporting of his weapons to the NRA, which I shared with you.

Lastly, If you are under the impression that our government needs your serial numbers in order to confiscate your weapons, you’re delusional.

The authorities would seal-off your neighborhood under martial law and would conduct a house to house search, collecting all they found. Declared martial law, as you should know, suspends the Constitutional rights bestowed upon our citizenry. Disobedience could cost you your life.

Boy are you stubborn, Jeff. My opening comment, #4 was written in response to this you wrote in your comment #2,

“The funny thing is, the NRA mailing list is not even a gun registry. It doesn’t know if people have guns or not.”

My comment #4 which mentioned “registry”:

“Jeff, you have no possible way to know that it is not in fact a registry. Go right ahead and call it a “mailing list” if you’d like to, we’re quite accustomed to your truth twisting. Use any term you’d like to, it won’t change the facts of the matter.”

Yes, I wrote the word “registry” in comment #4 but saying I’ve claimed the NRA kept a registry is patently false, a prime example of your truth twisting right up there for all to read.

And the rest of your comment ignores my truthful protest and continues discussing a gun registry, as if it was some point of contention still. What on earth motivated you to write this? “You keep failing to see the difference between a mailing list and a gun registry.”

“We are clearly talking about a gun registry. Does the NRA have one or not? That is the question being discussed.

The NRA does not have a gun registry. They have a mailing list.”

And what I wrote in my first comment, #4: “Jeff, you have no possible way to know that it is not in fact a registry.” And that still stands. You have no way to know what they have in their databanks. No one other than their staff and a hacker knows what’s in their files.

@Sentinel, I’ve already exlpained to you why they don’t have a gun registry.

In sum, they do not have the makes, models, and serial numbers of guns. People do not provide that to them, and do not tell them when they buy or sell guns. Their is no law requiring people to tell them that info. To they extent that anyone might fill out a voluntary survey (that neither of us has ever even seen such a survey) people can tell them they have Sherman tanks and rainbows for guns. Or people with lots of guns could tell them they have no guns. The NRA simply does not know, has never even asked what guns I have, and does not know what guns anybody else in the NRA that I’ve asked has.

Chis W is the only person who says he told them something about his guns, and we have asked Chris W to clarify and he hasn’t yet. Chris W could have bought guns since, or sold guns since. There is no obligation to tell the NRA.

All of this contrasts with the government mandating that all guns bought and sold be identified and recorded by make, model, and serial number, along with personal information, into a gun registry.

Good news everybody. Lord & Taylor is returning to the area and Walmart is hiring for their new Niskayuna location. So all those folks who lose their jobs at the Remington Arms Plant should be able to find new jobs right away. See how that works? Everybody ends up happy.

Jeff G, call it what you want, the difference between the two is those in political power, if they are against guns, they will take them away. (And it doesn’t matter if you have a BGC, or not). The NRA, would go the other way and try and sell you something, in support of gun ownership.
And #5 is absolutely correct.
@5 Don’t walk away…stand up and fight! Stand your ground!

@Tony B, the Times Union has your email and IP address. I do not know what they do with it. Bloggers can see that for each comment submitted. I can see that information, but do nothing with it. I can also see all the comments you have sent to Lawrence White about me.

I do not know the address or other information about Fred. I do not even know if he is an NRA member or not. Nor do I know if he owns guns. Nor do I know the serial numbers of those guns he may or may not own.

@Tony B, Fast Fred 101 knows I have no ability to actually send him anything, although he wishes I could send him that Buck knife he wants.

Not all your comments can be approved. In general, comments with personal attacks or swear words or name calling against others are not approved. I can see both the comments that get approved and those that do not get approved.

“It is in fact true that the NRA “mailing list” itemizes all weapons owned by every household member they’ve targeted who responds to their inquiry, with their first point of contact being either an completed NRA membership application received after one has completed an NRA sponsored training program or event.”

Not true. Check your sources on this one. You’ve been misled. I just joined. No such questions asked.

” The entire point of your posting is to discredit the damning report.”

The report isn’t damning. It merely discovers that the NRA, like most successful organizations, keeps a list of existing and potential clients. Not a revelation to most people who know how things work.

” I just quoted Chris W.”

A sample of one is hardly compelling.

“what your buying and how often”

Your is a pronoun, the possessive case of you. You’re is the contraction, you are.

I do like the new narrative – using the term “radicalization of the NRA”, also used by LW to give the NRA that terrorist feel. Very persuasive. I’m sure we’ll see it again, just like when liberal gun laws are referred to as ULTRA liberal vs plain old conservative. I like ULTRA. It’s also the fuel I use in my car.

So, for someone who just joined the NRA, John Q, you’re going to tell me about the surveys they’ve sponsored that I responded to over my very many years as a member?

Seeing you’ve misunderstood me, let me be perfectly clear, You’ve just established your first contact with the organization; surveys and action notices will surely be arriving soon.

The question asked, “where would they get that information?” was exemplarily answered by a fellow gun owner Chris W. He volunteered the information. You might want to ask him what he was responding to than to rather than so pitifully attempt to belittle me for misspelling the word “they’re.”

If you don’t think the NRA is far different than the NRA I joined, you’re delusional. Radicalization is not a disparagement, it is a factual description of the organization’s transition post-1972. You should ask some other former lifetime members who’ve resigned why they resigned and they will more than likely use some form of the word radical. Radical is Stand Your Ground.

Perhaps you read today’s story of the Sovereign Citizens who where arrested for conspiring to kidnap, torture and murder policemen? Just a few more rational, responsible gun owners, right, John Q?

Ok, now let’s see how some who actually does have several guns would fill it out:
1 water pick
2 blue Nerf guns
1 orange Nerf gun

As I’ve said, the NRA does not know who has guns and who doesn’t. They don’t have a gun registry. If you happened to respond to a survey from them then yes I’d expect them to have your survey answers, just like any other organization would keep survey answers. But voluntary survey answers is not a gun registry.

I’ve never even been sent such a survey, never been asked to list my guns for them, and would be surprised if anyone would ever seriously list their guns. I even have firearm insurance and don’t list my guns for that.

@Tony B, in New York state you cannot have a handgun unless you have a permit. You cannot even hold one to look at it. In many gunshops, they will ask to see your permit, and if you don’t have one you can’t see the guns.

However you can apply for a pistol permit. Call your county clerk’s office and ask how to do that. After you have started that application process , you will notice a form in your packet that requires you to take a gun safety course.

At the safety course, the instructors may have handguns to show you, so they can show you how they work, how to safely operate them.

I have had students tell me that I have some really cool guns. What they mean by that, you’d have to ask them. But I assume part of it is that they are not legally able to own handguns yet, so they are glad to see the different styles up close and be able to learn about them.

You were not able or willing to answer my question, so I looked up information about the inability to touch a handgun in NY, without a permit.

“When I asked about personal protection, a salesman suggested a revolver — a Smith & Wesson, a Ruger or a Colt. “You could try it out,” he said, “and if you like it you could go for a semiautomatic.”

But he did not seem as if he cared one way or the other, especially since I did not have a permit, which meant I was not allowed to handle the merchandise. Go online, he suggested, and see what looks good.”

Deep breaths now. What’s all this about 1972? Can you explain? And why would you respond to a survey that asks you personal questions about what you own? Do you send in those warranty cards from mixers and things? You don’t have to do that, you know.

I wasn’t belittling you about your misuse of our language. I was just correcting you. Using wrong forms of words changes the meaning sometimes making it hard to understand
what you are trying to say.

What does the sovereign citizens movement have to do with what we were discussing? Why do you think I believe that they are rational, responsible gun owners? I don’t even know who they are or what they are doing. You’re all over the place.

Let me see if I understand your filemna, Tony B. You approached a firearm salesperson, without a license or permit to own a handgun in NYS, and asked questions about the preference of handgun, you might like. Sounds like the salesperson, realizing he would not be able to sell you anything, until you corrected your licensing shortage, politely suggested you review available options on line, in the interim.

Apparently realizing that choice of firearm is dependent largely on personal preferences such as size, grip, loading, storage and comfort as well as intended purpose (consealed carry, home security, target practice, hunting back-up protection, etc., the salesperson declined to point to a particular weapon.

Aside from acknowledging that you were deliberately wasting the time of an individual working, and encountered a salesperson who was trying to be helpful, despite realizing that talking to you was a waste of time, your point is…..?

Julie wrote, “Sentinel, the questionnaires are to find out what the members feel towards the direction and operation of the NRA.

Most of them are compiled as to how many people vote on question 1 (etc) without tagging each respondent.”

Yes, some indeed are sent to garner input of the organization’s operation and direction.

Some are politically motivated “action alerts,” asking members to sign-on to a certain petition or to call or write a certain politician they my support or oppose. Many of these may be contracted out by the NRA to a third party to organize and carry out. Nothing new here.

Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute. Suggesting the NRA customer lists is in any way remotely the same as the intentions of some, regarding government firearm registry REGULATIONS is simply being duped.

The two scenarios are as different as a grape and a watermellon. Why would anyone be surprised that the NRA id keeping records of information THEY ASKED FOR. iT’S FOR MARKETING REASONS, statistical reference and client records.

What a beautiful slight of hand, planting the seed that “even the NRA keeps records” relating to firearms, might just suggest to some, “low information voters” that all this record keeping is somewhat natural, so therefore the notion that the government should maintain records may not be all that problematic afterall.

That may be, up to the point someone in the right government position decides, maybe people shouldn’t own Remington Model XYZ, because it looks really scarey or “might” be too easy to use for an illegal purpose, so I think we should collect all the XYZs in our registry. The government has the power to actually do stupid things like that whereas the NRA, or any other civilian entity would even think of trying that.

Don’t be fooled, if you don’t like giving the NRA any information thay might ask for, don’t give anything to them, that’s altogether different from the government tracking the specific locations of privately owned firearms.

Hey Jeff G, looks like you really stirred a can of worms with this one, although it sounds like a LW blog.(Only from the other side).
I just wish some of the grabbers would form their own opinions instead of always using” well you said and she said and he said” wish some of you would grow up. I was going to say and stop acting like a bunch of little girls(but I don’t want to offend little girls). My only comment for the weekend….continue on!
BTW- never had the NRA get any gun info from me, but I did get questions from Tony B as to how many guns and what I used them for…of course I can’t say here what I would like to say…old Jeff G would delete me. Give them hell, Jeff G!

Of course the NRA knows the names and addresses of its membership. What organization doesn’t? How on Earth would they mail me renewal notices or my regular copy of American Rifleman without knowing where I live?

This is nothing new, it’s one of the oldest ploys ever developed; when you have nothing available to strengthen your argument, which is toppling over under it’s own weight, distract the discussion with some nonsense that has no bearing on anything.

This approach has been remarkably effective in recent years in the political arena, void answering the questions and challenges that matter, by clogging the discussion with nonsense that doesn’t.

One old remedy still works, keep the light on, and all the Bogeymen stay invisible and under the bed.

Maybe the NRA keeps a mailing list but New York does not. Despite the pile of handgun control laws in this state, New York cannot say with certainty where those guns, or their owners, are at this moment.

I have in my possession a pistol permit that belonged to a relative who has been dead for 23 years, and who moved out of state 33 years ago, Had he lived he would now be 96 years old. For all practical purposes that permit remains valid according to New York’s records.

Personally, I would like to see New York enforce – repeat, enforce – the existing laws before drafting a bunch of feel-better ones that will ot be enforced.

SD. Most counties have moved to a plastic licence with the persons picture on it.
Try taking that licence to a dealer and buying a firearm with it as ID… They will ask for your drivers licence as well…

Once a person has moved out of NY the license is no longer valid. An address change must be filed with the issuing authority. So no, that license is no longer valid. Any guns registered to that person should have been seized unless those guns were also registered to another person.

Jeff G.:
Thanks for writing this article to inject some common sense on this issue after LW (along with his liberal brigade) wrote that non-sense about the NRA having a registry. Like Tom Baker said what organization doesn’t have a mailing list of its members. AA has a list of its members does that mean they send them a bottle of Jack Daniels for Christmas?

The fact remains that the NRA has no idea what firearms I own and that’s the way I like it and why would an organization that has been so adamant about gun registries keep one of its own anyway?

Only an absolute moron would mistake a mailing list for a gun registry and I agree with Albert J. in that this is just LW stirring the pot because his arguments have no merit. Interesting though how hypocritical LW has shown to be once again i.e. he seems awful interested in attacking the NRA for having information about gun owners but he himself has taken pictures of gun owners without their permission and for what purpose – his own personal registry perhaps?

Ive always been left of center, but conservative when it comes to laws that take away our liberties, like the freedom robbing NY liberal based gun laws.

The Feds and States want a gun registry so that they know every time they respond to an incident “if possible armed” suspects are in their car or living room. The national registry will readily be available to all law enforcement. Then every time you hear breaking news it will include a likely anti-reference to whether guns are possibly involved. The luckilly defeated background check law required the FFL gun shop to take pozession and electronically catalog all guns going through private gun sales. Eventually you get a national registry and then you can use any incrimental method you choose to effect a confinscation by banning, cost prohibitiveness, feeing to death, or however you want to bite away at it. Get real you “they wont confinscate your guns” grabbers, of course they wont, they will get you to hand them over one way or another. Pay any school taxes lately seniors?

With the NSA watching us, it is easy to understand why we need to be able to defend ourselves from our government. That the loony anti-freedom types condone NSA surveillance, while they condemn the right of the people to keep and bear arms, discredits the anti-freedom folks among thinking people.

AMUSING!!! Now Jeff G this is a general comment and not aimed(pardon the pun)at anyone, but you all can take a guess.lol
Then the anti-gun grabbers wonder why everyone is laughing at them.
The other day the grand kids were in the pool shooting their “cool’ squirt guns.
But I did let them “look” at the real ones and they thought the were “awesome”. I said don’t you think they are cool…they both said no, only squirt guns are cool.
Lesson here, even small children who are taught, know the difference between real and fake.

@Fast Fred 101, squirt guns are cool because of the refreshing cool water on a hot Summer day. Guns can be cool to the touch, especially on a very cold day out hunting.

I think it is worth while showing kids real guns and teaching them gun safety. That training should start around age 3. While guns should safely be kept away from young children, I agree with you that they need to know what real guns are and what they do, and how they are different than toy guns or movie and cartoon guns.

Freddy, some who do not appreciate guns in the way that you do see them as lethal weapons and rightfully so, but also they acknowledge the pain of loss so many guns floating about in the hands of irresponsible owners and criminals have wrought with more gun-caused deaths mounting daily.

For them guns are not at all “cool” but they are the cause of their greatest pain. Hopefully, you would not fault them for their experience, which is far different than yours.

Hopefully you wouldn’t try to console someone who just lost their child to gun violence by suggesting to them that they should get a gun or to just replace their loss by having another child.

I don’t understand how an NRA instructor can post such a comment, and not impart some of his knowledge. It is not teaching when you show kids real guns and ask them if they are ‘cool’. It is a DANGEROUS message. The message is, GRANDPA THINKS HIS GUNS ARE COOL. There was a lesson learned, but most likely not the one intended.

@Tony B, I have no idea what you are referring to. If referring to me, you’ve lost the context. Sometimes when I teach people gun safety, they say I have really cool guns. That is the statement I made. And for teaching people how to shoot, I use real guns.

Lawrence White says I don’t let people know who I am on the blog. I told him when I teach, the students get to see who I am, and I also said they get to see some really cool guns. I am referring to adults who are learning to shoot. I explained to you already why those adults, who like all NYS residents are prevented from owning handguns without a very difficult to obtain permit, would likely find it cool that they are finally getting to learn about guns that they’ve been thus far prevented by law from owning.

A 4 year old boy brought a loaded handgun to school. Thankfully a class mate told the teacher, and no one was hurt. Happened in a school just south of Atlanta GA.
Looks like the class-mate must have had some instruction in weapons…maybe at age three!?!
Some kids are trained at a very young age, swimming, potty, talking, walking, computers, you name it, even weapons.
Then again some people are taught things in colleges and still don’t have a clue, as to the rights of people defending themselves, against those who are not even educated in grade school.
Hey, Jeff G. I think this one should go thru, but thanks for my last one, I think that one keeps me ahead of TB on the leader board of deletes! lol

@Fast Fred 101, some people don’t seem to think we should teach people gun safety.

Guns are around in the world. Laws or no laws. Bans or no bans. Even if banned from legal ownership, guns would still exist. They are not going away. The only question is whether law abiding gun owners have the right to keep and bear arms.

Given those facts, it is important to teach children about gun safety. Age 3 is a good starting point. The 4 year old classmate deserves an award for knowing what to do, and doing it.

Being afraid of the gun, if that is what happened, and then going to the teacher is good.

Other kids might be curious instead. Being curious, without having learned gun safety, is a dangerous thing. Kids are curious about lots of things, and parents teach them safety at an age appropriate level. That should include gun safety.

Snicker, golly gee, I think you’re getting it. Teach kids early about guns, if need be, scare the hell out of them so they don’t touch and respect it. Later on, when they have learned more and that it could kill someone, they may say, “awesome gun.” They may even say “cool”. Whatever, but they will understand not to fool with it.
Of course, I never have to worry about my kids, messing with weapons, cause they know better.
BTW- they also have been taught that they are always loaded!!

Do you really think a 4 year old “heard what happened at Sandy Hook”, some 800 miles away, or that his parents were smart enough to teach him what to do, just like touching a fire, or staying out of water or avoiding dark places, etc.

Well Albert, decades before Sandy Hook I taught my children about gun safety. They were aware of the difference between a real gun, and a play gun…..and what to do. Get away from the gun and tell a grown up—-DECADES before Sandy Hook.

How can any parent teach their kids about guns and safety, when they have no clue what a real gun looks and feels like!?!
Just wondering about the 4 year old and the gun, how did he get it and was it taken from a legal gun owner. Any way you look at it the gun owner is responsible, and should lose that weapon.

Pardon me if I misunderstood or if am mistaken TB,
I seem to recall you saying that your kids were not allowed to have so much as toy guns growing up. Did you borrow a cap gun from one of the neighborhood kids? Use a banana?
a squirt gun (were they allowed in your family?) How’d that go for you?

avoidance and/or prohibition is NOT the same as firearm safety.
Not the same ballpark, not the same league, not even the same sport.

My kids played with toy guns. I taught them never to point a gun at another person, period. (same as Jeff G’s father). I did not purchase the toy guns, but I am not a loon. I let them play. And I taught gun safety.

I said, “Sure”, when they went to play paint ball when they were teens. I did not make A GUN the forbidden fruit.

But you are correct. I did not have toy guns in my home. (squirt guns, yes).

Their friends had toy guns. That was fine. I did not confiscate toy guns.

They also had an air pistol when they were about 19. It used a cartridge, and shot plastic pellets. They used it in our backyard, to shoot cans. (No one lived for acres and acres on our property.) All safety precautions were taken. They are not gun dunces. I’d say the Marine has the most experience with firearms.

@Tony B, that is a fine quote to address, but you seemed to. I incorrectly associate it with me. I wasn’t the author of it.

Nor is that quote saying you need to have a real gun present in a classroom to start teaching about guns. You don’t need an elephant in the classroom to teach about them. But a picture of a real elephant would help. And eventually as kids learn it might be instructive for the kids to actually see a real live elephant.

Look Jeff G:
We will never agree about the way to teach children concerning gun safety. You purchased your three-year-old a rifle. I find that to be irresponsible. And if you delete this, then why did you post the information in the first place? Didn’t you expect your provocative statement to be met with SOME disagreement?

I knew my example of teaching ‘biological reproduction’ would be deleted. But it is absurd to think that I must own a firearm to teach gun safety. My analogy was, you don’t have to hire ‘an escort’ to teach your children about ‘biological reproduction’. (I cleaned that up so perhaps you will post it. It’s a crap shoot when it come to me.) And that is a shame. Debate and discussion requires more than YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES, I agree with you.

@Tony B, again, I never said anyone has to own a gun to teach gun safety. In fact you can become an NRA instructor without owning any guns.

At some point as people progress and learn more about guns, how to safely handle a gun and shoot live fire becomes part of the curiculum.

As to the rifle I bought my 3 year old, I think you missed the context of that blog article. He knows he is not going to be able to shoot that rifle until he learns gun safety and shooting skills. It is a deer hunting rifle. The learning starts at age 3, but when do you suppose he’ll actually get to shoot it?

First there is explaining guns, the beginnings of basic safety rules, the differences between real guns and toy guns, explaining hunting, criminals, police, war, self-defense. At what age do you suppose we’ve arrived at by this time? There is also learning on nerf guns, then BB guns, bows and arrows, and eventually a rimfire rifle at age 12. Then after that age, when ready, and still under supervision, he’ll finally be ready for his first shots using the centerfire rifle I bought him.

Jef G:
There is something else I believe you misunderstood. When another commenter said he showed his ‘awesome’ guns to his grandchildren and asked them if they were cool’, I believe with your training and knowledge that you should have objected to that method. What you do not say, is often as important as what you do say.
Silence is complicit. Meaning, you allow what is clearly wrong to go unchecked. I would not expect that from a firearms instructor.

“The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn’t to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program.”

So, would you say this is factual, or not?:
“The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program teaches children in pre-K through third grade four important steps to take if they find a gun. These steps are presented by the program’s mascot, Eddie Eagle, in an easy-to-remember format consisting of the following simple rules:

If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don’t Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.”

The question posed was, “How can you teach gun safety unless your child knows how a real gun feels.” The NRA manages. In the classroom they DO NOT USE FIREARMS. If you feel, Jeff G, that this is an ineffective way to teach, I think you should take it up with your organization.

I taught my children gun safety. I did not require the NRA to tell me how to teach my own children.

“It looks like California is once again leading the nation in the destruction of the United States Constitution. Alex Jones’ InfoWars and several other conservative websites are reporting that with a “minor” rule change, the state has greatly expanded its list of “armed prohibited persons” — people who for some reason no longer have their Second Amendment rights, according to the state. Like all such tyrannical power plays, this one sounded reasonable at the time. It was advertised as only affecting those who had felony records, mental health problems and domestic restraining orders that make allowing them to have guns unwise. Since then, the state has pumped an additional $24 million into the program, and the list has quickly expanded to include people who are delinquent in paying taxes, who owe toll duties or who have committed a variety of misdemeanors. Former DOJ Special Agent Greg Cameron said the program has become “gun confiscation under the guise of safety.”
NPR recently ran an enthusiastic story on the roundup efforts. The guns being taken by authorities are legally purchased and registered, according to gun rights advocates, and are only being taken because the owners have landed somehow on the ever-expanding “prohibited” list. One case cited by the NRA involves a man named Joe Mendez, who is not otherwise identified. Mendez said that a police officer came to his door and asked him to come outside, using a story about a hit-and-run car crash. Once outside, Mendez claims, he was held at gunpoint and handcuffed while authorities ransacked his home looking for weapons and ammo that he had purchased legally.
The incident bears out the contention of gun rights advocates that registration lists are not for the safety of the public, but for use by the state in targeting law abiding gun owners.”

My question is why are they going after the law abiding gun owners instead of the criminals with guns? Because the criminals will shoot at them.

@Julie
I went through dozens of websites and was unable to find any mention of why Mendez was on the list of prohibited people. In video interviews Mendez contends he has no idea why he would be prohibited from owning guns, yet he was arrested. There is obviously more to this story as he was charged with a crime.

Here is the list of prohibiting categories. I am curious what offenses you would take off the list and allow those people to own guns and live next door to you.

@LiftUptheFlag, the problem is if you would still allow all those people to live next door to you. If you trust them with knives, cars, gasoline, bats, all sorts of weapons. And if you trust them around your kids, and around my kids, and trust them to freely walk the neighborhood streets.

@Jeff G.
There are laws to prevent certain individuals in society from owning guns. As Tony says give a criminal a gun and “all bets are off”. How about you answer the question that I do not expect Julie to answer. I know you are familiar with the list of prohibited categories, because you and I have been down this road before. Who on the list do you believe should not be prohibited from owning firearms?

We cannot lock criminals up forever like you suggest. Although I do favor strong sentencing as you do. If they are going to be let out, like you oppose, how do we keep guns away from them if we don’t have guidelines and regulations?

@LiftUptheFlag, I would consider background checks if the issues of registration and confiscation are addressed. As I’ve said, I have nothing against background checks as long as there is no registration involved. If there is registration involved, then the issue of confiscation needs to be resolved. Background checks should be free, quick, and easy to do, so as to not burden the process with unnecessary fees and delays. It should allow people to get off lists that otherwise might prevent them from exercising their Constitutional rights. There should probably be a federal standard for gun ownership. I’m not sure the whole country will agree with the misdemeanor items on that California list. What keeps states from creating even more restrictive lists? Are speeding tickets next? I do not know, but it would have to be discussed before a universal background check could become law.

@Jeff G.
“There should probably be a federal standard for gun ownership.”

“What keeps states from creating even more restrictive lists?”

This is what I have been saying all along. The lack of coherent, uniform federal regulations gives us the SAFE Act and some of the more controversial laws in California. But the lack of regulations also gives us 33 states with lax regulations affecting other states. Without sensible federal regulation these problems will go on for years.

@25 7 Hey TB, I’ll take credit for that comment. And I’ll have you know I was talking about “parents”, any idea who I’m talking about!?! Talking about parents saying they are teaching gun safety….when the “parent” hasn’t got a clue!!Never had a real gun or used one, how the hell can you teach, if you’ve never had one!?!(JG the previous statement was made at general “parent”).
I can’t say more, as Jeff G will delete my comment, and I’m already ahead of you on that list! LMAO!

Yup. I win. That is fine by me. I have a purpose, and that is to work diligently to help reduce the number of deaths due to gun violence. To work with reasonable people to reach a consensus, where the right of the citizen and the preservation of the 2nd A can coincide. I do not believe gun confiscation is even possible. I do believe that gun regulations are necessary. I support legislation at the federal level for BGCs.

That’s about it FF. I am not LMAO, because I don’t think any of this is funny.

For that blogger that thinks taking away honest peoples weapons, I say hogwash. In all the people I know I can’t think of any who have died from gun violence, except for one that committed suicide,(white guy) and two of my buddies in the VN conflict(btw-both were minorities).
Sorry, for your losses, however, I feel no sympathy for irresponsible gun owners(criminals) for any of their losses. For people with no respect for weapons, or others, they should all get what they deserve.
There are thousands of people, and kids killed all the time, not just the 20, you gun grabbers use shamefully to promote your crusade.

@Snicker Doodle, I agree with you on this one. I don’t accept the deaths, either. I don’t feel that people get what they deserve. You and I disagree on what changes there should be, but we do agree that we need to reduce violence. We disagree on how to best do that.

So you guys are sympathetic to the guy who shot the twenty kids!?! You’re sympathetic to the one Boston bomber who was shot and killed!?! You people are sympathetic to all those violent murders, that destroy peoples lives(talking good innocent people), well if it makes you feel better, you’re welcome to those feelings. And SD, my views have nothing to do with humanity. For those that do their evil deeds are not human! I know that Jeff G is all for allowing murders, no matter how violent a life behind bars for the rest of their lives….to pick what TV channel, and program they can watch that week. NOT ME!

@Fast Fred 101, no I’m not sypathetic to the murderer. I’m sypathetic to the victim. It might not have come across clearly from your post, if you were intending to say the same. Thanks for the clarification.

As to the murderer, I am against the death penalty because of the risk of the court making a mistake and executing an innocent person. I will agree with you to take tv away from the jail cell.

@FF so you’re not sympathetic to an irresponsible gun owner who’s child got a hold of it and shot hisself? What’s it like to have no heart? I wouldn’ know. Nobody uses the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook to promote any agenda. It’s something that really happened, it was shocking and needs to be remembered and people like you apparently need to be reminded that people suffer at the hands of others who obtain weapons that shoot 20 people just about all at the same time. What kind of person wouldn’t want to make a change so that it never happens again? Too bad if it bothers you that you read about that mass murder all the time. It’s reality, it happened, it’s happened before, it will happen again and again and again if something isn’t done about it. 20 6 and 7 year olds died. How many at Aurora? It’s just got to stop. Change is happening, like it or not.

@Jeff G.
Our history is filled with public policy decisions that were directly enacted in response to tragic events. The public outcry and subsequent political response following Sandy Hook could, and should, be more accurately described as the culmination of events which included Aurora and Tucson. This is not to say that I agree with all of the legislation that evolved from these tragic events, but that I recognize that some of those who genuinely believe in strict gun control are genuinely looking at a bigger picture and not focusing on just that one horrific event and the associated emotions to promote their agenda. To continue to focus on just Sandy Hook is a weak attempt to minimize the impact of multiple acts of gun violence that has plagued America.

Criminals and gangs possessing weapons. It is time to stop the flow of guns into the hands of the mentally ill, and criminals. Sticking your head in the sand and claiming Sandy Hook was an excuse to grab guns, is preposterous.

300,000,000 weapons in circulation. And growing. If we allow this to on much longer, everybody is going to lose. Eventually.

Well thank you for the compliment, and finally we agree on something…yes I can form my own ideas, without quoting sources, maybe you should try it sometime. BTW- I really don’t feel that JG is interfering by interfering with what I’m saying…heck he also misread some of my comments, I really think he’s trying to help you anti-gun grabbers, to learn comments made mean, because you all twist the meanings trying to find credit for your failing crusade.
It’s really the anti gun grabbing fanatics who use selected events, that are shameful.

@31 5 SD Not one bit sympathetic to the parent whose child shoots themselves with that irresponsible gun owners gun. I am sorry for the child that dies. I also feel that, that parent should lose their weapons, and face jail time. Sorry SD, there is NO excuse for those types of crime.(They are not accidents).

Jeff G I always,always have sympathy for the victim, unless of course the victim is another criminal.
And I’m not selective as to how the victim died, like those shameful anti-gun grabbing crusaders, who pick and choose for their propaganda.

FF – I went down this path with LW & TB a while ago – they went nuts when I said lanza or the boston guys should have been shot and killed – I was told I dont care about victims – so I asked why should I feel bad for the shooter…..I shouldnt – no one should.

That is NOT correct PW. What you said is you would ‘plug’ the bomber; go out with your own gun and ‘plug’ him.

I said that would not have been a smart thing to do, because you would not have know f he were strapped with explosives. And further, PW, to jog your memory, I said that the BPD did the right thing. Getting the guy ALIVE. See? Capturing him alive allows for questioning. i. e. Did he and his brother act alone? Was this part of a larger terror organization? Are there more bombs planted? And so on.

I also believe if there is a maniac shooting up children, LE absolutely should shoot to kill. The guy was making it rain bullets. I certainly think there are situations where you must shoot to kill. To preserve the lives of others.

And I agree with Jeff G on the death penalty. Too many mistakes have been made, and you cannot undo death.

If you are interested in some information concerning this matter, google ‘Houston Crime Lab. Michael Bromwich.”

One of my kids worked on this case. The lab was a disaster, and convicting innocent people. Some were on death row. AND, it was Houston that requested the investigation. I believe three on death row were exonerated. That does NOT mean ‘not guilty.’ Exonerated means they had the wrong guy, and he was INNOCENT. And proven to be innocent.

“getting the guy alive” – and to jog your memory – the night before, there were something like 200 rounds exchanged between the bombers and the police….im SURE they were shooting at the bombers feet the whole time.

and yes if some clown is shooting up my neighborhood and comes onto my property IM GOING TO SHOOT HIM. kinda like the skunk who was screwing with my pets…if you want to play with me, I will play back.

TB – I clearly said the NIGHT BEFORE…if you read that than I guess youre telling me during that firefight the police were NOT trying to kill them?

yes they took him alive, from the boat. how many meals a day is he eating? I would bet more than none. thats seem right to you? kill that #@@$# with a bomb..and move on. unless you think he is innocent and it would be an “error” to kill him…

Yes PW:
The night before the brothers were in a firefight with LE, and also killed an MIT security officer. Sean Collier.

And……that changes nothing concerning taking him alive if they could. While in the firefight, of course LE were shooting to kill. THEY WERE UNDER FIRE.

I am not suggesting they should have taken the bomber to Wendy’s for fries and a burger. HE WAS WORTH MORE ALIVE THAN DEAD. For the security of the public. LE wanted information. Not Paulie walking around with his arsenal to ‘plug’ the guy. YOU would have been obstructing their mission and honorable duty.

My point is, you did not tell the truth @33. You exaggerated a wild story about LW & TB. Mr. White can speak for himself. But I NEVER suggested what you claim. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

PW:
“and yes if some clown is shooting up my neighborhood and comes onto my property IM GOING TO SHOOT HIM. kinda like the skunk who was screwing with my pets…if you want to play with me, I will play back.”

I have a skunk on my property who messed with my pets. I did not shoot the skunk. Now, and I swear to God, the skunk sits on my doorstep waiting for my cat to go out. And guess what? They sit on the damn front porch together. Side by side.

you know i dont just run around looking for animals to shoot – this one had issues – he no longer has any.

I would rather target shoot than hunt (unless you need the food).

now jerky people, robbing my home? different story.

For the record, my vehicle was stolen a few weeks ago – I found it a hour later AND found one of the guys (not kids…dudes were like 45) guess what TB, I didnt shoot them. and I LOVE my truck…imagine that.

they arent getting the chance to “retreat” – your dead on the way in – as I said before, that door is locked for your protection, not mine.

and as far as the truck goes – where do you think I went looking for it? I can tell you I didnt find it in Delmar, loudonville, or guilderland. so when I did locate the truck, I could not see if anyone was still inside – turned out to be empty – however if those wonderful citizens decided to drive at me as I approached the truck from the front, or got out to defend their stolen treasure, wouldnt YOU want to be prepared? no? you would have sat home and let someone else handle your problem – or ran away and hid – I dont get down like that sir. you know why they stole my truck? for CRACK money. they were in my truck for less than 2 miles and it will NEVER smell the same – how about get a job? dont smoke crack? mix in a shower. and if you end up dead from stealing and smoking rock thagts not my problem and no, I dont care. in fact, good.

Unless you know something that not only wasn’t established at his trial, but wasn’t even claimed, your observation, “he did the right thing in shooting to kill” is factually unsubstantiated.

In the heat of a struggle, Mr. Zimmerman shot his assailant in his efforts, judged to be reasonable, to resist his being attacked. Although the shot taken proved to be fatal, there is no indication the shot was taken with any conscious “intention to kill”.

When are you going to listen to what is really good advice, Tony B? You really need to think about what you’re going to say, BEFORE you shoot your mouth off.

I wasn’t responding to you, believe it or not there are others beside you who contribute to these postings. My response was directed to Fast Fred101’s post of 8/30, which I basically agree with except for the suggestion that there was a conscious intent to “shoot to kill”.

Carrying out the “Death Penalty” is an awesome responsibility, and must be only be exercised with the utmost care and degree of certainty possible, but has a place in out criminal justice system DESPITE the impossibility of GUARANTEED PERFECTION.

The errors, that keep being referenced, have been recognized, the causes for their occurrence have been adjusted and corrected and protections to prevent their reoccurrence have been applied and are rigorously enforced, to the extent that unlimited effort is applied to any and instances to verify the accuracy of sentencing before executing it. Technology advances have been instrumentalis both verifying guilt, as well as exonerating others, providing levels of certainty generally not available to certify verdicts repeatedly pointed to as past miacarriages.

There are instances where absolute guilt has not only been proven, but is readily admitted, in some circumstances celebrated and boasted about, and those guilty of reprehensible criminal acts have fully earned the verdict of their fate.

Extreme efforts to insure accuracy are appropriate, Appeal mechanisms designed to verify and insure accuracy to verify guilt are a necessary phase of sentencing, but the ultimate penalty being available for a select list of “ultimate” crimes is called for to satisfy justice.

@Albert J, I do not support the death penalty. There is no need for it. Life in prison without parole, and without luxuries, can be the effective sentence.

I do not accept the mistakes that could be made in the death penalty process. There is unlikely a deterrence effect to be gained, and might even be the adverse result of martyrdom gained by some of the murderers.

Life without parole would be a good sentence if prisoners weren’t treated better than we treat our elderly and veterans. It’s sickening the care and perks prisoners get while there are law abiding, hard working people without dental insurance or basic health care and our elderly are starving and our veterans have sub par health care. I’m all for the death penalty, especially for repeat violent felons, especially child abusers, molestors and murderers. Maybe if we brought back the death penalty, criminals would think twice before commiting their crimes. If they get convicted now, they get free everything. I’d much rather my tax dollar support veterans and the elderly and educate children, not felons. I also think if someone is sentenced to death, it shouldn’t take 30 years. Within a year of conviction/sentencing would be good. This country is so backwards.

Snicker I agree with most of your thoughts on that comment. I disagree with, death for repeat violent felons…there would not be a second chance.
I think criminals would not think twice for two reasons…1 they don’t think in the first place and…2 they wouldn’t be taken alive…which I would certainly support. Whack them right on the spot.
@Jeff G. we need to stop using the excuse that someone innocent might get executed. First off, someone innocent did get killed, unless it was another criminal.
And the ones I’m saying get executed are those that did the crime and there in no doubt.
The second Boston bomber…executed. The guy who held the three woman for 10 years and killed the one baby…executed. The punks that shot the Aussi, while just having fun…executed. The punks that killed the 88 year old Vet, not with a gun, but being unarmed with their fists…executed…Have a nice weekend all, and stay safe…and I do mean ALL!

There are different opinions, all of which may be valid. I don’t think anyone should reasonable expect that no matter what they do, they will be safe from the ultimate penalty. I don’t advocate more Capitol Punishment sentences, don’t think they should apply to a lot more circumstances, but when the crime justifyies forfeiting your life, and there is a certainty of guilt the penalty should exist, and when circumstances dictate, should be carried out.

This is not depriving someone of the opportunity to experience life, Capitol Punishment is someone deliberately forfeiting the right to continue living by commiting some criminal act so grievous it qualifies for such a penalty.

You can’t rectify wrongful executions but I think if someone is a violent repeat felon, there’s no question. Do you really think someone would be wrongfully convicted over and over again? People like that should be executed from society instead of being supported by it.

@Snicker Doodle, even then I do not support the death penalty. Instead keep that person locked up in a high security solitary cell forever.

That’s the problem we have, not keeping murderers in jail. We need to reform and improve that. The Webster murderer had been let out of jail after killing his own grandmother, and then proceeded to murder the firemen. And yet Cuomo wants to blame the gun.

Jeff – I have to disagree with the “keep the locked up” for a few reasons.

1. after a certain numbers of arrests the penalty should be severe enough to deter people. wether that is death or being drop onto an island with a butter knife. repeat offenders CLEARLY dont learn from being arrested.

2. costs. as with most everything else, it comes down to money. everything costs money. having them sit in a cell for life does sound like punishment but I dont want to pay to feed/house/guard these people.

If we stick with the lock up plan then lets make some changes. There is a HUGE need for these criminals to be put to WORK under armed guard to offset their costs. you get out of line while working, you get what you deserve.
youre in jail – not club med. dont like it? stop being a knucklehead.

Albert J technically you are correct to think he may have only tried to shoot a warning shot, or maybe just make him feel uncomfortable so he could get him off and handcuff him, but it’s “my” opinion, that he shot to save his life, and like TB says, he shot him in the heart! End of story!

I didn’t suggest Mr. Zimmerman intended a warning shot, any more than he intended to “shoot to kill”, my presumption is he fired his firearm to stop getting the living daylights beaten out of him, withoput a whole lot of thoughtful consideration beforehand.

You are likely correct, his motivation to shoot, was likely to save his own life. He didn’t “shoot” Martin in the heart, he shot and the bullet happened to strike Mr. Martin’s heart.

When someone CHOOSES to roll a snowball down the hill, they’re never quite sure what it might roll over on the way down. Unfortunately, for Mr. Martin, CHOOSING to open up a can of “Whoopass” took a turn he never anticipated.

“WKMG news is reporting that George Zimmerman, who in July was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin, has been taken into custody in Lake Mary, Florida, after “an incident involving a gun with another person.”

Police say they were called to a Sprucewood Road residence to investigate an argument that involved a gun and a threat. Zimmerman’s mother in law, Machelle Dean, lives on Sprucewood Road, but it is unclear if the argument took place at her home. Jeff Weiner of the Orlando Sentinel reports that police have confirmed that Zimmerman is in custody for a “possible domestic battery.”

This incident comes just days after Zimmerman’s wife, Shellie, filed for divorce. In an interview with Good Morning America, Shellie said that George has a serious temper and was verbally abusive to her.”

One thing about “bleeding-Hearts”, they are absolutely consistent. You likely “jumped the gun”, Sentinel, immediately concluding all sorts of things about the Martin-Zimmerman shooting, that proved to be untrue, exaggerated or just imaginary.

Of course being a “bleeding-heart”, you can never accept being proven wrong, regardless of how much proof you’re confronted with and there are always new and inventive ways to invent additional doubt, regardless how silly.

So, now the Zimmerman’s are divorcing, perhaps due in some part to a year and a half of extreme chaos caused, in no small part, to a lot of ridiculous pre-judging, by our ever so toleratnt and fair minded bleeding-hearts. It’s quite rare that a divorce brings out the best in the participants, and this seems to follow that path, at leasr from the onset.

It doesn’t really make a whole lot of difference what these facts turn out to be, the bleeding-hearts, with the direct support of much of the media, many of which are closet bleeding-hearts have designated Mr. Zimmerman as a villan, and no matter what he does, or doesn’t do, from now on will ever be allowed to erase that designation.

Make no mistake Jeff G and Albert J, just goes to show what these so called anti-gun grabbers will come up with to further their cause, and have no second thought about using any types of fabrications. Bleeding hearts for their crusade, it’s really very shameful. They have no guilt in doing it either. SHAMEFUL!
Of course they post all kinds of links for their shameful actions to support their crusade.
I keep wondering about that 88 year old Vet, who was killed by two young punks, had the Vet been able to defend himself with a gun. Just like GZ. They were unarmed too, just with fists. Just trying to get money to buy some skittles, I guess!?!

“According to the former assistant coroner, the results of Martin’s autopsy clearly showed that, despite Zimmerman’s statements regarding their altercation, there was no feasible way for Martin to have been on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired, because the bullet entered Martin’s back.”

Sentinel, do yourself an enormous favor, simply accept that you jumped at “red meat” and formed your conclusion before bothering to think about ANYTHING except your preconcluded biases and agenda. You can spend the rest of your life trying to prove you were actually the one who was right, and everyone else (police, judge, jury, both the defense and prosecution) got it wrong, but absolutely nobody, but you and perhaps tinyurl, cares.

There are those here whom are VERY WRONG when they try & tell you “the vast majority of American’s” want these types of laws & regulations. All of Mayor Bloomberg’s money can’t turn a turd into gold apparently.
Good for Colorado but too bad for those of us under Kim Jung Cuomo’s dictatorship.

Tomorrow is a pretrial hearing. Despite the state’s attempts to have the case dismissed and their numerous delays, it is going to court.

The removal of Morse and Giron yesterday was good news indeed. One would think that with gun control legislation only aimed at the law abiding being so gosh-darned popular as some people say they would have won easily.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s name wasn’t on any ballot on Tuesday, but voters in two states delivered sharp rebukes of his policies nonetheless.

Democrats in the Big Apple likely picked Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who had positioned himself as the most liberal candidate in a crowded Democratic field, as their nominee to take over when Bloomberg leaves office after completing his third term. And Colorado voters booted two Democratic state senators who had significant financial support from Bloomberg in a recall election spurred by gun control legislation that passed earlier this year.

The very different campaigns shared one thing in common: Bloomberg, cast as the villain, playing a starring role.

De Blasio led the Democratic mayoral primary with 40.2 percent of the vote with more than 98 percent of precincts reporting, staying barely above the threshold that would allow him to avoid an Oct. 1 runoff. His candidacy rested on contrasting himself with some of Bloomberg’s most unpopular policies. He has promised to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for universal pre-kindergarten, and to end a stop-and-frisk program that Bloomberg’s police department instituted, two positions that set him apart from the rest of the Democratic field.

The candidate’s message was explicitly anti-Bloomberg: “He’s the only Democrat with the guts to really break from the Bloomberg years,” de Blasio’s son, Dante, says in the campaign’s first television advertisement.

De Blasio beat out city council Speaker Christine Quinn, former city Comptroller Bill Thompson and ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner, three candidates who began the race with much higher name identification. Quinn came under withering fire for her close alliance with Bloomberg, Thompson never surged and Weiner’s comeback bid flamed out after yet another sexting scandal.

De Blasio, on the other hand, picked up momentum in the final weeks as the race became a referendum on Bloomberg’s tenure. It has been 20 years since a Democrat presided in New York’s city hall, and party activists saw de Blasio as a candidate who stood for their principles.

“Most people have come to believe that [this election is] really about a rejection of Bloomberg, at least the last four years of Bloomberg,” Liz Benjamin, a New York political analyst and host of YNN’s Capital Tonight, said on PostTV’s In Play. “He changed the city for the better, many people would agree, but he also created under his watch a wider rift between the haves and the have-nots.”

In Colorado, voters recalled Democratic state Sens. John Morse and Angela Giron, strong backers of gun control legislation that passed earlier this year over the vocal objections of gun rights activists. The recall against Giron passed by a 12 percent margin, while voters ousted Morse by a far narrower 2 percent margin; the results mean two little-known Republicans, former Colorado Springs city councilman Bernie Herpin and conservative activist George Rivera, will fill the remainder of Morse’s and Giron’s Senate terms.

The legislation that spurred the recall efforts had the support of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of city officials from across the nation that Bloomberg leads. After passage of the legislation, conservative activists collected more than 10,000 signatures to force both Morse, of Colorado Springs, and Giron, of Pueblo, back on the ballot.

Bloomberg inserted himself into the race last month by donating $350,000 to the cause. Other liberal groups spent millions more on television and mail ad campaigns aimed at saving the Democratic senators, while the National Rifle Association spent about $361,000 against the Democrats.

But Bloomberg’s money wasn’t necessarily a positive for Morse and Giron, both of whom tried to change the subject to anything other than the gun legislation.

“It’s been a double-edged sword for the candidates,” Rick Ridder, a Democratic strategist in Denver, said of Bloomberg’s involvement. “On the one hand, it provided ready support and resources. On the other hand, it may have kept the [focus] on guns longer than they might have wanted.”

“There has been a backlash with the disclosure of Bloomberg money,” said Laura Carno, a conservative activist who led the recall campaign against Morse. “People wonder why his is playing in Colorado. I had one person ask if we were going to have to limit soda sizes soon.”

The elections in New York and Colorado are likely to have an impact on Bloomberg’s legacy, and on his future plans.

In New York, assuming his runoff-avoiding 40 percent margin holds, de Blasio still has to beat former Metropolitan Transportation Authority chairman Joseph Lhota (R), who on Tuesday won the GOP primary by a wide margin. But if he becomes the city’s first Democratic mayor in 20 years, de Blasio will take New York down a new and different path.

The ramifications in Colorado may be measured more by what doesn’t happen. Democrats planning to introduce gun control legislation in their states are likely to be far more wary about pushing those bills aggressively if they know the NRA and gun rights activists are able to force them into a recall election.

“The NRA has wielded a lot of influence for a long time in legislatures,” said Michael Sargeant, the executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.

We’re all familiar with the warning, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”, which has a lot less to do with the intentions themselves as it does to warn against those who see themselves as empowered inquisitors, given some mystical power to guide the behavior of EVERYONE ELSE.

It’s so much easier to feel so much better about yourself, when there is a conveniently dedicated villan made available that you can pontificate about, criticize and point to as an example of everything you’re not (at least in your own estimation).

Sadly, it’s not uncommon, and becoming more frequent. We don’t need to look far, today we were advised the re-trial of former State Senator Joe Bruno will start, in time for Christmas. Double jeapordy, of course not, you see there were several t’s crossed from left to right, during the first trial, that should have been crossed from right to left, so the time honored concept of Double Jeopardy won’t apply in this instance. I guess some apples just lend themselves more to multiple bites.

Is there a connection between incidences? It turns out those racist, bigoted cops and Town prosecutors, who judgd probable cause INSUFFICIENT to arrest and accuse George Zimmerman, immediately, turned out to be correct, as almost 2 years of political posturing, inflated rhetoric and exaggerated suspicions finally confirmed.

Of course, rather than simply accept that conclusion, and that the loudest among us were just wrong (even though they usually are) we’ll still hold the specter of additional Federal prosecution, that’s already been exhaustively investigated and produced nothing, seeking some inventive opportunity to demonstrate the Mr. Zimmerman, like every single one of us, is NOT absolutely pure and/or perfect.

Joe Bruno spent a lifetime slogging through the swamp of Albany politics, and produced a career of benefits, good works and added a level of logic and common sense in countless decisions for those he represented. More than likely, during that long career in the muck of the Albany political scene, he may have taken a short cut or even got a little of the muck splattered on his shoes, but there’s been little argument his good works far outshadowed any t’s crossed the wrong way, which may well have been appropriate at their time. Actually, that was verified by his first lengthy and expensive court appearance, but nevermind, for some being less than absolutely perfect just doesn’t cut it.

Not to matter, the Albany political muck includes some pretty influential, and very sensitive toes, that don’t forget being stepped on, even if for good reason. So lets stop the clock, erase the vindication and redraw the story line to better align with a new set of rules.

So it’s all rather silly (or some might consider repulsive), nothing will be accomplished and even the “righteous indignation” comically fueling this charade, if proven, will doubtedly satisfy anything, anyone or provide any meaningful closure or benefit.

It seems as long as we have a visible, “villan du jur” to cast all our frustrations and condemnations at, somehow that makes some a lot more comfortable with their own imperfect behaviors and feeds their own illusions of personal perfection.

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.